DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Voice of the Imaination, whole no. 29, January 1944

Transcribe
Translate

Voice of the Imaination, whole no. 29, January 1944

Page 10

all manner of satisfying acts--bnothing cosmic, or world shaking about them, but still thoroughly satisfuing.  The stf-less fan, on the other hand, is merely batting his head against the brick wall of human indifference.  "Emerging" may be a necessary stage in our personal evolutions, but we will undoubtedly be happier if we remain int he chrysalis.  "Milty's letter on the purpose of fandom STINKS.  WHY must fandom have a purpose anyway?  Fans are fans because they enjoy it--any other reason is highly superflous, and smoke of Horatio Alger adn the Junior Chamber of Commerce.  One of the most annoying faults of contemporary American thought is the apparent necessity that every acticity have some definite and useful purpose.  We can't do something because we enjoy it---hell no, that would be too much like the shiftless natives of the south seas.  We can't go out and play golf because we enjoy the game; we must play golf "because it is good for our health".  We can't go to a juice store and get a glsas of orange juice because we like orange juice and enjoy the taste of it; we must drink it for th vitamin PDQ it is filled with.  We can't read for the sheer delight we may get out of someone's mastery of words; we must read to "improve" our minds.  We can't beat our wives for the sheer sadistic kick we get out of hearing them scream; we must beat them because they need discipline.  "Why in the sacred name of Tsathoggua every human act must be rationalized so as to show a practical and useful purpose is completely beyond me.  I am undisciplined, perhaps, but (with the sad exception of making a living) I do what I damn well want to, and ONLY because I damn well want to.  If it improves my mind, if it is good for my health, if it happens to have some practical purpose--- I can't help it; that is wholly incidental."  What I started to say, fandom NEEDS no high and mighty purpose.  We enjoy fan activities--get our kicks therefrom--what more justification does the field need?  Want to argue with me, Milty?
Bill Wobow ye Devilled Ed of diablerie, The Poor Fan's Esquire, 1299 California St, Frisco 9, Cal, composed the following during Staplecon #2: I hereby nominate Harry Schmarje's title of the number one jerk.  The title, from his letter in number 28 VoM, fits quite well, so why not let it stick?"  His feeling of friendliness might be well-felt, for they certainly fall into the same class, he and Harry Schmarje.  And as to Schmarje's being young--he's a damn sight older that "grandpapa" Honig."  Harry Honig is an atheist, clap, clap.  Well--g o-o-o d for hum, he's to be congratulated, but not for that, I fear.  Rather for his idiocy, heh, heh." God forbid!  He'd dumbfounded! No, wait--he's been found dumb.  That, of course, is a matter of opinion--all of fandom's opinion, or I'm a wet sock. (Hi, old sock!)" I appreciated Moffat's letter--I'm sure that the majority of the fans did.  Len, after all, is entitled to his ideas.  No one has a right to dictate to him not even Great God Honig. Selah!" Yerke: Please analyze Honig... two-bits says that a straight-jacket will be your verdict.  If so, I'll contribute half a buck for the cause.  Maybe even a dollar!"  Comes the subject of nudes.  An old one, but it still appears to be raging strong.  I like nudes.  I harbor nothing--that I can recall--against nudes, either in the flesh or on paper.  I of course prefer them on a bed or low on a couch, but that's just my viewpoint.  Forry sez he likes 'em on a sheet, but hell, what kind of sheet? A clean sheet, he sez.  High rag content, he adds.  We're still getting nowhere--hi ho.  (Use your nude-al!)" To tucker: not all women here are overly well- and large-breasted.  Just well-developed; pert, we'll call them.  Come to sunny California sometime, Bob, and we'll furnish you all the women your constitution can stand. Fun. (Come to Stapleconstitution #3 & have a fab-a time!) I miss Bob Bloch's choice and juicy remarks.  He's humorous. Like me.
Jimmy Kefnee(?) adresses "Douglas Ackeraft" from 628 SBixel, LA-14:And the endless discussion in re nudes rages on. Really, Forrojo, I think the whole thing is starting to get a bit ridiculous. Everyone throws in a few haphazard comments in each issue but still the discussion continues-- and so the nudes. I did a little checking and in the last ten issues of VOM , I only found sixteen and three halves nudes, one and a half of which were male , ( the halves relating to drawings of only the upper portions of the body , rather than to hermaphrodites) and five and one half semi-nudes. This totals up a surprisingly mediocre average of two nudes per issue. With of four being male or else semi-clothed. Ye Gods! Is that what the fans are doing all that howling about? Much more space has been wasted in pointless discussion than was used by drawings themselves.
Now what is the reason for all this storm of protest?
One complaint is that nudes, in the flesh or drawn are vulgar, per se. I see no reason why the human body should be considered lewd. Nor should its particularly erotic numbers be looked upon as vile. Why snub that from which we derive one of our greatest pleasures? Reproduction is perhaps the chief aim of any living thing, and the organs connected with should be looked upon without false shame or modesty. I will go further and claim that even the natural processes of waste disposal should offer no reason to blush. Not that I mean we should glorify these things. It is however necessary for which the entire race to adopt a banner attitude in order to maintain psychological health. Next, perhaps, comes the contention that while nudes, per se, are not vulgar, many of those published in the VOM and other fanzines are interred for lewdness. I offer neither protest nor denial here. While I certainly shouldn't care for a steady diet of "smutty" jokes or drawings, I do enjoy them, if they're sprinkled sparringly. Most fans are liberal enough not to wine prudishly at sexy jokes or cartoons.
Another charge is that they use up more space than their quality warrants. In many cases this is perhaps true, altho even a poor drawing helps to counteract the narcotic effects of several pages of solid print. Nor can you,as editor of the particular type of mag that VOM aspires to be, held quite responsible for the

Saving...

all manner of satisfying acts--bnothing cosmic, or world shaking about them, but still thoroughly satisfuing. The stf-less fan, on the other hand, is merely batting his head against the brick wall of human indifference. "Emerging" may be a necessary stage in our personal evolutions, but we will undoubtedly be happier if we remain int he chrysalis. "Milty's letter on the purpose of fandom STINKS. WHY must fandom have a purpose anyway? Fans are fans because they enjoy it--any other reason is highly superflous, and smoke of Horatio Alger adn the Junior Chamber of Commerce. One of the most annoying faults of contemporary American thought is the apparent necessity that every acticity have some definite and useful purpose. We can't do something because we enjoy it---hell no, that would be too much like the shiftless natives of the south seas. We can't go out and play golf because we enjoy the game; we must play golf "because it is good for our health". We can't go to a juice store and get a glsas of orange juice because we like orange juice and enjoy the taste of it; we must drink it for th vitamin PDQ it is filled with. We can't read for the sheer delight we may get out of someone's mastery of words; we must read to "improve" our minds. We can't beat our wives for the sheer sadistic kick we get out of hearing them scream; we must beat them because they need discipline. "Why in the sacred name of Tsathoggua every human act must be rationalized so as to show a practical and useful purpose is completely beyond me. I am undisciplined, perhaps, but (with the sad exception of making a living) I do what I damn well want to, and ONLY because I damn well want to. If it improves my mind, if it is good for my health, if it happens to have some practical purpose--- I can't help it; that is wholly incidental." What I started to say, fandom NEEDS no high and mighty purpose. We enjoy fan activities--get our kicks therefrom--what more justification does the field need? Want to argue with me, Milty? Bill Wobow ye Devilled Ed of diablerie, The Poor Fan's Esquire, 1299 California St, Frisco 9, Cal, composed the following during Staplecon #2: I hereby nominate Harry Schmarje's title of the number one jerk. The title, from his letter in number 28 VoM, fits quite well, so why not let it stick?" His feeling of friendliness might be well-felt, for they certainly fall into the same class, he and Harry Schmarje. And as to Schmarje's being young--he's a damn sight older that "grandpapa" Honig." Harry Honig is an atheist, clap, clap. Well--g o-o-o d for hum, he's to be congratulated, but not for that, I fear. Rather for his idiocy, heh, heh." God forbid! He'd dumbfounded! No, wait--he's been found dumb. That, of course, is a matter of opinion--all of fandom's opinion, or I'm a wet sock. (Hi, old sock!)" I appreciated Moffat's letter--I'm sure that the majority of the fans did. Len, after all, is entitled to his ideas. No one has a right to dictate to him not even Great God Honig. Selah!" Yerke: Please analyze Honig... two-bits says that a straight-jacket will be your verdict. If so, I'll contribute half a buck for the cause. Maybe even a dollar!" Comes the subject of nudes. An old one, but it still appears to be raging strong. I like nudes. I harbor nothing--that I can recall--against nudes, either in the flesh or on paper. I of course prefer them on a bed or low on a couch, but that's just my viewpoint. Forry sez he likes 'em on a sheet, but hell, what kind of sheet? A clean sheet, he sez. High rag content, he adds. We're still getting nowhere--hi ho. (Use your nude-al!)" To tucker: not all women here are overly well- and large-breasted. Just well-developed; pert, we'll call them. Come to sunny California sometime, Bob, and we'll furnish you all the women your constitution can stand. Fun. (Come to Stapleconstitution #3 & have a fab-a time!) I miss Bob Bloch's choice and juicy remarks. He's humorous. Like me. Jimmy Kefnee(?) adresses "Douglas Ackeraft" from 628 SBixel, LA-14:And the endless discussion in re nudes rages on. Really, Forrojo, I think the whole thing is starting to get a bit ridiculous. Everyone throws in a few haphazard comments in each issue but still the discussion continues-- and so the nudes. I did a little checking and in the last ten issues of VOM , I only found sixteen and three halves nudes, one and a half of which were male , ( the halves relating to drawings of only the upper portions of the body , rather than to hermaphrodites) and five and one half semi-nudes. This totals up a surprisingly mediocre average of two nudes per issue. With of four being male or else semi-clothed. Ye Gods! Is that what the fans are doing all that howling about? Much more space has been wasted in pointless discussion than was used by drawings themselves. Now what is the reason for all this storm of protest? One complaint is that nudes, in the flesh or drawn are vulgar, per se. I see no reason why the human body should be considered lewd. Nor should its particularly erotic numbers be looked upon as vile. Why snub that from which we derive one of our greatest pleasures? Reproduction is perhaps the chief aim of any living thing, and the organs connected with should be looked upon without false shame or modesty. I will go further and claim that even the natural processes of waste disposal should offer no reason to blush. Not that I mean we should glorify these things. It is however necessary for which the entire race to adopt a banner attitude in order to maintain psychological health. Next, perhaps, comes the contention that while nudes, per se, are not vulgar, many of those published in the VOM and other fanzines are interred for lewdness. I offer neither protest nor denial here. While I certainly shouldn't care for a steady diet of "smutty" jokes or drawings, I do enjoy them, if they're sprinkled sparringly. Most fans are liberal enough not to wine prudishly at sexy jokes or cartoons. Another charge is that they use up more space than their quality warrants. In many cases this is perhaps true, altho even a poor drawing helps to counteract the narcotic effects of several pages of solid print. Nor can you,as editor of the particular type of mag that VOM aspires to be, held quite responsible for the